Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[chimp3]

No, why would you even think that?  Life had to begin from something that was not living ... it is necessary for evolution ....

Ok... so why do you say that science has "proven" that a man who has been dead for three days cannot come alive again?

Even the simplest life requires the specific arrangement of a complex sequence in order to carry out the functions for life.  In the case of a being that was once alive, the material is already present and arranged.  It just needs to be made living again.  I would agree, that in Christ's case that some repair was necessary; however is this any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?    Keep in mind as well, that it was not just natural forces and random chance, that are behind the resurrection of Jesus.  The description attributes an outside and intelligent interaction (God) as the cause.  

So by what distinction do you say that science as proven against the one, and yet accept the other?

Resurrection after 3 days being "any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?" ? Yes. Much more difficult. Next "smarter than a 5th Grader" question?